And it's not her call to decide what is or is not valuable to the defence.

It is not up to her to decide what is "relevant" to Defense case or any path of discovery that evidence may lead the Defense! Shocking example of concealed evidence! She should be disbarred or at least sanctioned!

Well, also, her saying that is just wrong and she knows it. The prosecutor is not the finder of fact. That's the jury's job, not hers. She can't just take it upon herself to decide that something is not relevant, if it's at all connected to or sworn to be related to the case. Which it was. The person who brought it forward claimed that it was related to the ammo that was on set. Once that claim was made, it's up to the jury to decide whether that's true, not the prosecutor. I think she was lying anyways about that. She knew it was relevant, that's why she colluded with the police department to bury it, she was just trying to save her career in any way possible once the judge found out about that.

Exactly, not up to her to decide if it was relevant. Its not giving the defendant a fair trial

It would seem that ANY evidence is relevant evidence.

And certainly gives one pause to consider reviewing her work in Hannah’s case

Except for Relinda Johnson. As soon as she found out about it she wanted to outright dismiss the case, and when Morrissey refused Johnson asked the judge to be released from the trial and hit the ejection seat switch.

Absolutely. Should be an automatic disbarment. How many other people did they do that to? They all need to appeal!

@@aggie8115 That’s the scary part . How many others …….. ?

@@Kryssyskingdom But this "evidence" was first presented to Hannah's defense team. They passed on it and said to give it to the prosecution. So it will be hard to argue this in her case.

Bro a high profile case like this…How convenient that the prosecution is dumb af….For all we know this could have been coordinated ..

I am sure this is the only time this has happened. A simple mistake. 🤨

She's a defense attorney. Usually sitting on the opposite side.

@@timharris2291 In that case she should know what she would be looking for as a defense attorney. If the prosecution did that to her you know she would have made the same motion to dismiss.

@@timharris2291 She did a great job defending Alec

Yes. They explained that in the video. 😂

Wow, HOW ABOUT LISTENING TO THE FREAKEN VIDEO. You and the other Russians padding your comment.

It means that the charge cannot be filed again.

Once you suck one piece of evidence you will always be known as an evidence sucker.

What was tampered with?

@@williamwaters4506Process was tampered with. It was not properly documented and should have been disclosed to the defense.

@@williamwaters4506 Your brain

She is a defense attorney with her own practice who was hired as a special prosecutor for the 2 cases.

@@matthewa8713 She should know better then

There is no mess up....Prosacutors are legally allowed to do it....Issue is having a lawyer willing to say there is a Brady violation...99% of lawyers will not do it!

Unethical

Ya think?

Yeah, she never should have brought such a ridiculous case.

@@GhostRider-dp2tc Expects to be taken seriously... "Prosacutors". Yeah, okay.

@@starexplorers1202 no more needed you said it very well. You’re exactly right

Such technicalities make justice in this country a literal joke.This is getting to be all too common.

You mean big government cleared the path for dismissal for the anti-Trump actor.

​@@Holmberg_Audio no, he means something totally different. But for a Maga cultist 1 month old account, a clear troll, every conspiracy theory is daily food for a sick mental disorder

Regardless of what the prosecutor did, it doesn’t change the fact that Baldwin killed someone with his gun. So he goes free because of the misconduct? Why not give the defense all the evidence and restart the trial with different jury? Where is the justice for the lady who was killed?

Like Alvin Bragg?

let me clarify this..... the defense can hide, suppress, not disclose any evidence they want. The defense is not obligated to disclose anything that would harm their case. The prosecution IS obligated to disclose/classify all evidence or information that may or may not be related to the case. That is the big difference.

What if the host took a bowl of the punch (that he did not know was spiked) and forced you to drink it, and you died… still ok??

@@LuvableAF "I'll take Irrelevant Whataboutisms for $100"

The DA in New Mexico passed a law and tried to charge Alex Baldwin 7 months after the shooting. A first law student will tell you this is "Ex Post Facto" and violates the US Constitution. You cannot be charged with a crime after that law has been past. This is why the DA delayed the case for so long, he was out to get Alex Baldwin. Those charges where immediately dropped from the case by the Judge.

​@@LuvableAFthat's some weak what about-ism. Please reexamine how much you dislike the guy before trying to rationalize that reach lol😂

Perfect analogy

They all are. They are agents of EVIL.

Why does that matter ? What matters is competency.

@@wengelder9256 And she was totally incompetent, corrupt, untruthful. So glad she was caught out.

No it was the DA in New Mexico he appointed her. In fact, he had to go back to State and get special funding just to hire her. This was a total rail road job from the very top.

Actually, no he can’t because the government has governmental immunity

Not really. He got his remedy.

@@brynneholt1990 No, as long as the prosecution bring in a bad faith prosecution, they can sue, and the judge already said today, on the criminal court, which require an absolute standard, it may not have been bad faith, but it was very close to it. Which mean in a civil court, which you only need a balance of probability, Baldwin would probably be able to win on a bad faith argument, and if he does, he will win the court case. Just because the judge remedy it by tossing it does not take civil action go away, in fact the judge also said action and sanction was reserved, and it is up to the court to decide.

@@cosplayshop nah.

@@TylerD288 Nah what? Can you be more specific?

We have to wait for them to go after those who were really involved into that. Someone who was conveniently not listed to be charged with anything.

Yeah, that's what I've been screaming while jumping up and down !!!

@@jeanhanner9407 Did they not find the armorer criminally responsible for that?

@@AtomicBuffalo No, she was found criminally responsible because she was reckless and didn't check the blanks properly disregarding procedure which caused the 'mistake' of a live ammo in the gun. Live ammo was in the set... However, it could not be proven that she brought it in herself. The other guy denied he had brought in live ammo himself, and she denied it too. There were arguments that it could have been sabotage etc. They didn't have to prove if she brought it in or not. She should have been able to tell as she handled the ammo. She failed. This evidence would have been damaging to her case. The prosecution should not have bagged it away.

That is dramatic !!!

Yeah that is what actually happened. But why is everyone calling the prosecutor corrupt if she just was sloppy and/or incompetent.

@@onkelfabs6408because she’s not allowed to decide what is relevant to the defense and, when they were given evidence this past March, instead of telling the defense, she and the cop filed it under a separate case number. Everything related to the trial should have been linked to the same case number

@@impersnickety7450 to my understanding, the cops did that on their own. They could not attach it to the same case number without a witness statement. And they could not get in said witness statement.

@@onkelfabs6408the investigator testified on the stand that they had conversations with the prosecutors and their supervisors and they all decided to file it under a different case number. So the prosecutors were there and they wilfully withheld it

Yeah.. I bet whoever had the money paid the prosecutor and law enforcement to suppress that evidence so the case would be dismissed or even appealed to get the defendant free after months and months of negative press. Sound totally legit that money talked.

I dont agree. What I believe is that the prosecutor detests men and took her hatred out on Baldwin. I believe that that this case was simply a reflection of society today, " all men bad, all women virtuous victims"

So did Stockton Rush! Just sayin'.

Absolutely agree. They were just looking for a big scalp to hang on their wall. This case was silly to anyone with common sense. Even if it had made it to trial, there would be little chance he would have been convicted. Same if this goes to a civil suit - you’re not going to get 12 people to agree that he was guilty of anything. It wasn’t his responsibility to check the props. Why was the prosecution insisting that it was?

@@JohnSmith-ef2rn BDS. Baldwin derangement syndrome. He was never going to be convicted but people wanted it to happen anyway

Guess she is now… 😂

I can't stand you!!!

You for sure are a person of integrity. Thank you for being!

@@Velyris please enlighten how is he a murderer?

WELL !!! We're going to have another look at Gutierrez-Reed's case. Good! The reason for live ammo on set is still unclear.

Sure, but what was this evidence of (relevant to Baldwin). No one seems to have an answer for that.

@@timharris2291they literally explained that in the video. LOL

@@shashay1344 I listened through a second time and I still don't hear it explained. It's just supposed to be obvious I guess. In my mind, even if there was video proof that someone sneaked live rounds unto the set (and after all, we know *someone* did do so), it doesn't change the fact that Cooper's rule says you always handle a gun as if it is loaded, never point it at anything you don't intend to destroy, let alone pull the trigger -- and Baldwin did all those things. So I ask again, what is it evidence of? The girl also shows incoherence in saying that it "absolutely" affects Hannah's case as well. This "evidence" was given to her defense counsel before it was given to the prosecutor! So how could it even conceivably be an offense with respect to Hannah?

Her lawyer is now filing an appeal. This evidence came after her trial was over.

She was already tried and was sentenced for it. The other one responsible the Assistant Director pleaded no contest and is serving time for it too. Baldwin should not have been tried at all as an actor..... but... he will / well the company will be liable in civil suits.

Involuntary manslaughter. Basically, he was handed a gun and told it was “cold,” I.e., safe. He didn’t then test it himself to confirm, he trusted the person whose job it was to ensure the gun was safe. Spoiler alert - it had a live round. DA said he should have checked it himself, defense said it wasn’t his job.

This.

He wasn’t going to be found guilty anyways. Hollywood actors live under a different judicial system than us commoners do.

I have questions about the evidence that arrived later. What did it represent? A toy pistol shooting a flag that says BANG ?

that is why this evidence was so crucial.... it could have worked it's way to figure out the source of that live ammo found on set. We may have to wait until the next trial is set... focus on the provider of the blanks provided to the set.

yeah I bet. Alec Baldwin probably paid the prosecutors to hide that evidence so his trial would be dismissed. He paid the whole bunch... law enforcement, prosecutors and judge. Your logic seems totally legit!

She will get her case dismissed too now

It wasn't a short time. The information was based on previous records they had on the investigation. Nothing on the records pointed out to something being amiss. It was hidden so nothing would be found. There were no notes saying a 'would be' witness was not answering the calls, nothing saying a 'would be' witness had given evidence that was not sorted or verified to have anything to do with the case etc. Nothing indicating that in any of the records. The defense seems to have known about these rounds... However, the defense is NOT required to disclose evidence to the court. They can hide evidence and is totally legal to do so. The prosecution is OBLIGATED to disclose anything that pertains to the case. They are NOT allowed to decide if is relevant or not.

Yeah! But he's a FREE man !!! I hope he has some PARTIES !!!

hahaha... did you read your own comment? ' NO ONE, who discharges a firearm, is exempt from KNOWING if said firearm has live ammunition in it'..... Did he know he had live ammo in it? There should NOT have been any live ammo in set period. There should have been blanks in the gun. Then the actor had NO way of knowing or even imagining in their wildest dreams that the gun had live ammo in it. So.. is he as culpable as you are saying? Your own comment denies that he is culpable.

@@jeanhanner9407 ha ha.. I read your comment, and it is clear you know NOTHING about the proper handling of firearms. Baldwin acted negligently. Period.

Armorer. Not a prop girl. There is a huge difference in responsibility and liability Most guns are also real but loaded with blanks.

She can appeal on a technicality. She would be the one walking out due to the suppression of evidence. Even if that evidence would have harmed her case.. This is a case of blatant disregard of the right of justice.

@@jeanhanner9407 I don't want to have to worry about the justices we have in our legal system. But was the judge going off like that reasonable ???

The suggestion is that the live rounds came from the ammo supplier, possibly maliciously as he was not happy she got the job, as these rounds were not disclosed during her trial they will argue she was not able to test that theory in court

How would someone make the prosecution decide to file the evidence under a different case number with no reference noted?

@@longfang98 No, I meant "set up" as in intentionally hid the evidence etc to get a dismissal with prejudice because they didn't want Baldwin prosecuted to start with, they were only doing it because of public pressure.

Prosecutors would not intentionally do this. Failing to disclose evidence is grounds for serious consequences against a DA (Firing, suspension, disbarment, etc.).

@@weirdo1060 Are you taking bets on that happening?

Best comment

It's not about you. Are you delusional

@@kamuelaleein the last 10 seconds

MAGA... but yes.. me too.

Yes there several and also not just prosecution but for investigations and handling of evidence too. Quite a devious tactic to hide evidence under another case file number rather than submit to the case and state clearly where it came from as they should have done then followed protocol after

​@@KryssyskingdomI liked it when the judge asked detective Hancock if Kari Morrissey was involved in the decision to file the new evidence in a separate file and she answered yes! At that point the prosecution case was done! The other prosecutor upon finding out about this decision to hide evidence quit the case as she didn't want to be associated with the misconduct. Erlinda Johnson even told Kari Morrissey to drop the case before quitting the team.

I think her defense was the gun was faulty and it was HER responsibility to ensure no live rounds were on set. The jury being told there were even more live rounds on set might not have helped her. And I think the bullets were given to police the day after her conviction so the DA didn’t get the chance to hide it from her

He did not deserve to be convicted.

If judge allowed the case to continue, Alec Baldwin could easily win on appeal. Prosecutors disclosing all evidence to defense is one of the biggest principles of criminal justice. Furthermore, she risked being sanctioned or impeached if she did not dismiss.

The “evidence” was a handful of rounds from a state away, that were never on the set, didn’t match any of the ammo that was on the set, and had nothing to do with the case whatsoever. The ruling today is mind boggling.

@@dannyhvac37 but now looking like this might be true......Kenney admitted he had issues with the daughter of his old friend, but he had no power to fire her from Rust. “It’s not that I wanted her fired, she was doing a horrible job at props … I had mixed feelings about it,” he said. “If I really wanted her fired, I could have gotten her fired.” Also, the weapons and ammunitions supplier could not give definite dates of when he drove back and forth from the 1883 set in Texas to New Mexico, travels that possibly saw ammo moving from one location to another. Defense lawyer Bowles, who has stated on a number of occasions on TV and in court filings that he believes Kenney was at least in part responsible for the live ammo getting on the Rust set, was more than a little incredulous that the supplier had not been able to nail down those important travel dates two years after the on-set shooting.

@@dannyhvac37 How is the... ruling "mind boggling"? You just provided a list of reasons... justifying the ruling.

@@tim3172 In order for there to be a dismissal due to a Brady violation, the “evidence” has to be both material and exculpatory. Those rounds were neither.

@@davidcleveland-yv6my but none of that is relevant to this case. Baldwin was charged with negligent handling of a firearm. Not anything to do with ammo.

Excuse you! The armorer Hannah guitierrez reed is in prison right now for putting the live ammo in the gun. Keep UP!

Yes, I still believe there will be someone held accountable, but Hannah’s case maybe reviewed too as it is on appeal but Justice and Lawlessness do not go hand in hand, Prosecution knew better and day three was about Kari covering her own misconduct not about the victim .. shameful conduct and must be addressed and out of respect is not the way for Justice for Halyna Hutchins

Prosecution cannot be the one to determine what evidence is relevant to the defense and this was deeply underhanded in filing it as a document under a separate case number it was completely devious, they should have submitted it to the case, identified where it came from, notify defendant and send for testing while was so much also wrong with the investigation.. the whole thing was riddled with questionable conduct from investigation to prosecution

What are you talking about. The armourer was charged and sentenced.

After this technicality, the armor will probably be release

Her lawyer is filing an appeal based on this.

When there is a gun related case, prosecutors have to prove weapon and ammo were part of the crime. It is not in this case since testing and disclosure were not done as required.

Explain why was he responsible?

@@jeanhanner9407 He pointed the gun at a human and pulled the trigger killing the person. He may not have know whether there was a live bullet in there or a fake but that is irrelevant. Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy. Firearm safety 101. However, since this is the first time something like this has happened and it was partially the fault of another we should be lenient and allow a truncated sentence. That’s just my opinion. I don’t care if it’s a movie, you’ll never see me point a gun at anything I don’t intend to destroy. Is it possible to argue against this?

@johnqpublic8070 He was one of a dozen producers on the movie and he didn't even hire the armorer. Also, if I'm the auto mechanic who's tool killed a coworker, am I responsible? You failed basic math class in grade school. Tragic that someone died, but Baldwin is a scapegoat. Likely the real killer is on the loose. No surprise that stupid people think that's a good thing.

@@joefish4466 I understand what you are saying about the auto mechanic but firearms have well established rules. I don’t think your analogy is directly comparable. In the court you have to prove what a reasonable person would have done in that situation. A reasonable person would not point a firearm at another human. It’s directly under their control and has safety rules associated with it.

@@matthewmosca3984 So if I point a stapler at a person an the person dies from a staple wound, does that mean I'm a murderer? There was no reason Baldwin should have thought the "gun" could have killed anyone, because a movie gun related death was never a thing. That's why he had an armorer. The fault lies with the armorer or who ever brought live rounds onto the set. Baldwin was not at the gun range. He had no reason to think that it was a dangerous situation. Same reason why I drive by the nuclear power plant, because I don't expect it to go off, because morons don't run the nuclear power plant, unlike you and MAGA hats like you.

It was all Alec Baldwin's fault. He's a murderer and he will face the full penalty of law in criminal and civil trials in the future

Not you. Your comment was three words and you spelled a third of them wrong.